Danah Boyd article

After reading the article I have come to one overall conclusion but was lead there by many scattered ideas which are shown throughout the article. The main things that I got out of this article were:
1. When the article opens Boyd discusses how people need to be motivated to be more encouraged about the government and changing in means of the internet or SNSes. My thought on that is that, I think that is a very scary idea. If the government wants to get more involved with the SNSes and internet...a place where people are "free" do explore what they want I think that they will start to take control of things in a way to alter their campaign or what not. I think that people will possibly become less interested in the internet because they government has so much involvement in it.

2.With that said though, I also believe that the government getting more involved with the internet could be a good thing. If candidates are campaigning online and are trying to encourage more people to get interested in what they are doing that they might inform us more on what goes on within the system...highly doubtful but its a chance. The government using the internet to inform people I think is alright but what candidates want to do to SNSes I think is wrong. People join social networks to be with their friends like the article said, and people also choose what content they see on the internet based on their interests...the government usually isnt someones interest...because its depressing like the article said about the war in Iraq compared to Hollywood gossip which is interesting.

3.The article also discusses how people on SNSes can allow people to be whoever they choose, they can be an online celebrity. Well my thought is if people can do that they obviously the candidates can do that, the ones that are featured on the SNSes. And if the candidates do it then no one will never know anything. The article also says that the internet has no walls, no boundaries.... for the government thats not good. Meaning if there are no walls there is a small filter on what stays private and what doesnt. A possibility of all of this government involvement could mean that people dont get to choose what they do on these sites anymore, and they dont have a choice but to look at the government content. But at the same time the public would hate that and probably do something to change it.